comparison#ofdifferent#tools# ......phase1. 14887 40 24 3 2683 6 2 0 2516 5 9 0,4 phase4. 9386 19 11...

R. Baciocchi, G. Costa, C. Di Mambro, F. Polli (University of Rome “Tor Vergata”, Italy)

A. Forni (Environmental Consultant, Italy)

COMPARISON OF DIFFERENT TOOLS FOR EVALUATING THE ENVIRONMENTAL FOOTPRINT OF DIFFERENT CLEAN-‐UP OPTIONS

SUSTAINABILITY INDICATORS AND METRICS 4th InternaPonal Conference on Sustainable RemediaPon April 27, 2016 Montreal, Quebec, Canada

4th Interna*onal Conference on Sustainable Remedia*on-‐ SustRem 2016

INTRODUCTION

•  Environmental sustainability is increasingly required from Italian environmental agencies for

the selec8on of the clean-‐up op8ons of contaminated sites.

•  Several approaches and tools are available to evaluate the environmental footprint of clean-‐up

technologies.

•  No guidelines for performing a detailed environmental sustainability assessment have been

developed so far in Italy. Clean-‐up

project data

Evalua8o

n and redu

c8on

of im

pact

Level 3: BMPS + Quan8ta8ve Evalua8on

Level 2: BMPS + Qualita8ve or Semi quan8ta8ve Evalua8on

Level1: BMPS

INPUT OUTPUT METHODOLOGY

LCA, SEFA, SiteWise; SRT Tool

Green Evalua8on Matrix

U.S.EPA BMPs

ITRC classificaPon of environmental sustainability approaches


AIMS

Different types of level 3 tools are available for quan8ta8vely es8ma8ng the environmental footprint of clean-‐up op8ons. For example:

Life-‐Cycle Assessment: •  Step-‐wise standardized procedure (ISO 14040) that

allows to assess material and energy inputs/outputs and emissions in water, soil and air and environmental impacts for selected impact categories

Remedy Footprint : •  Sustainable Remedia8on Tool (SRT) •  SiteWiseTM

•  SEFA tool based on U.S. EPA report “Methodology for Understanding and Reducing a Project’s Environmental Footprint”(2012)

GOAL of this study: Compare the results obtained applying different types of tools (e.g.: LCA and SEFA) for evalua8ng the environmental footprint of remedial op8ons

The choice of the tool and methodology may relevantly affect the outcome of the evalua8on.


CASE STUDY

CTCE max = 220 µg/L

LocaPon Residen8al area in a city center of Northern Italy (presence of buildings, traffic and workers)

ContaminaPon Groundwater contaminated by chlorinated solvents

•  Area = 2,400 m2

RemediaPon goals CTCE max = 1.5 µg/L

Operation Area


CLEAN-‐UP OPTIONS

Oxidant reagent (Potassium permanganate)

In Situ Chemical OxidaPon (ISCO) using potassium permanganate

Reductant reagent (electron-‐donor products)

Enhanced ReducPve DechlorinaPon (ERD)

Data ISCO ERD

N. wells (monitoring +injec8on) wells ISCO ~1,5 wells ISCO

Pipes length pipes ISCO ~1,5 pipes ISCO

Excava8on volume volume ISCO ~1,5 volume ISCO

Reagent amount reagent ISCO ~0,6 reagent ISCO

Water source GW + tap water tap water

Electricity requirements Reagent injec8on + GW pumping Reagent injec8on

Transport needs Waste + materials+ workers Waste + materials+ workers


SYSTEM

•  Wells installa8on (material, waste, energy, emissions) •  Piping and wiring runs (material, energy, emissions) •  Personnel transport •  Material and waste transport

•  Remedial opera8on (material, waste, water, energy, emissions) •  Personnel transport •  Material and waste transport

•  Sampling (material, waste, transport) •  Laboratory analysis of anions and ca8ons, metal and chlorinated

solvent (material, waste, energy, emissions)

•  Restora8on of site (material, waste, transport, emissions)

Phase 1. Site prepara8on

Phase 2. Opera8on

Phase 3. Monitoring

Phase 4. Site restora8on

Phases considered


ANALYSED TOOLS: LCA AND SEFA COMPARISON

SEFA LCA

Level Level 3

Sojware SEFA tool (Excel) SimaPro8

Database

SEFA (SEFAt) SEFA modified (SEFAm)

EcoInvent3 (mainly)

U.S.EPA (2012) U.S.EPA (2012) adapted to specific condi8ons:

• Italian Energy Mix; • Italian transport emissions; consump8on of fuel from

drilling wells; • Inventory dedicated for the monitoring phase;

• GHGs emission factor of reagent produc8on from literature

Func8onal Unit Contaminated site

System Site prepara8on, opera8on, monitoring and restora8on

Inventory Based on data of the Remedia8on Project

Metrics Material and Waste, Water, Energy, emissions to air (CO2eq , NOX, SOX, PM10) Selected environmental impact categories

Output Inventory output (metrics) Inventory and impacts

Impact assessment methods -‐ IMPACT 2002+ CML-‐IA

U.S. EPA report “Methodology for Understanding and Reducing a Project’s Environmental Footprint”(2012)


SEFA LCA

CML-‐IA (mid-‐point) IMPACT 2002+(mid point) IMPACT 2002+(end point)

Material and Waste Abio8c deple8on Carcinogens

Human health

Water Abio8c deple8on (fossil fuels) Non-‐carcinogens

Energy Global warming (GWP 100a) Respiratory inorganics

Air (CO2eq , NOX, SOX, PM10 and HAP) Ozone layer deple8on (ODP) Ionizing radia8on

Human toxicity Ozone layer deple8on

Fresh water aqua8c ecotoxicity Respiratory organics

Marine aqua8c ecotoxicity Aqua8c ecotoxicity

Ecosystem quality

Terrestrial ecotoxicity Terrestrial acidifica8on

Photochemical oxida8on Land occupa8on

Acidifica8on Aqua8c acidifica8on

Eutrophica8on Aqua8c eutrophica8on

Global warming Climate change

Non-‐renewable energy Resources

Mineral extrac8on

LCA AND SEFA METRICS/OUTPUTS:

ANALYSED TOOLS: LCA AND SEFA METRICS/OUTPUTS


RESULTS – SEFAT

SEFAt (U.S. EPA, 2012 Database)

ERD > ISCO (slight difference)

•  Water: ISCO > ERD ← Water consump8on oxidant >> Water consump8onelectron-‐donor •  Energy: ISCO ≅ ERD •  Air: ISCO < ERD ← GHGs wells perfora8on ISCO << GHGs wells perfora8on ERD •  Material and waste: ISCO < ERD ← wells ISCO < wells ERD

ISCO ERD

Total score (same weight of each metric)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Material and Waste Water Energy Air 0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

ISCO ERD

Air

Energy

Water

Material and Waste


RESULTS – SEFA

SEFAm (modified Database)

ISCO > ERD (slight difference)

•  Water: ISCO > ERD ← Water consump8on oxidant >> Water consump8onelectron-‐donor •  Energy: ISCO ≅ ERD •  Air: ISCO > ERD ← GHGs Oxidant >> GHGs electron-‐donor •  Material and waste: ISCO < ERD ← wells ISCO < wells ERD

ISCO ERD

Total score (same weight of each metric)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Material and Waste Water Energy Air 0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

ISCO ERD

Air

Energy

Water

Material and Waste


RESULTS – LCA, CML-‐IA

CML-‐IA

ISCO > ERD (twofold difference)

•  Ozone layer deple8on, eutrophica8on and fossil fuel deple8on: ISCO < ERD •  Global warming, human toxicity, acidifica8on and photochemical smog: ISCO ≅ ERD •  Abio8c deple8on and toxicity effects on environmental receptors: ISCO > ERD

Total score: Normaliza8on EU25 ISCO ERD


RESULTS – LCA, IMPACT 2002+ IMPACT 2002+

ISCO ERD

•  Ozone layer deple8on, toxicity effects on humans and environmental receptors and land occupa8on: ISCO < ERD •  Global warming and aqua8c acidifica8on ISCO ≅ ERD •  Eutrophica8on (Aqua8c), mineral extrac8on and respiratory inorganics: ISCO > ERD

ISCO < ERD (slight difference)

Total score: Normaliza8on to endpoints

0

20

40

60

80

100

Carcin

ogen

s

Non-ca

rcino

gens

Respir

atory

inorg

anics

Ioniz

ing ra

diatio

n

Ozone

laye

r dep

letion

Respir

atory

orga

nics

Aquat

ic ec

otox

icity

Terre

strial

ecoto

xicity

Terre

strial

acid/

nutri

Land

occ

upat

ion

Aquat

ic ac

idific

ation

Aquat

ic eu

troph

icatio

n

Global

warm

ing

Non-re

newab

le en

ergy

Mine

ral e

xtrac

tion

%


Air CO2E NOX SOX PM10

kg Phase 1. 12340 55.4 20.3 6.2 Phase 2. 2378 4.6 2.4 0.7 Phase 3. 3546 6.4 9.4 1.7 Phase 4. 6638 19.5 25.6 2.4 Total 24901 85.9 57.8 11.0

COMPARISON SEFA VS. LCA – AIR INVENTORY

SEFA modified database (SEFAm)

SEFA U.S. EPA database (SEFAt)

LCA database (LCA)*

ISCO ERD











*CML 2001 Method for CO2eq


COMPARISON SEFA VS. LCA – FOCUS ON GHG EMISSIONS (CO2E)

SEFA modified database (SEFAm)

SEFA U.S. EPA database (SEFAt)

LCA database (LCA)

ISCO ERD


kg Phase 1. 8687 24 14 1,5 Phase 2. 25351 20 41 4,5 Phase 3. 1795 4 7 0,4 Phase 4. 4264 9 5 1,6 Total 40096 56 67 8


kg Phase 1. 18195 81 35 3 Phase 2. 13211 32 46 5 Phase 3. 1644 8 4 0 Phase 4. 4304 9 5 0 Total 37353 131 90 8


kg Phase 1. 14887 40 24 3 Phase 2. 2683 6 2 0 Phase 3. 2516 5 9 0,4 Phase 4. 9386 19 11 1,6 Total 29472 70 47 5


kg Phase 1. 31166 140 60 5,0 Phase 2. 4163 16 7 0,6 Phase 3. 2462 12 5 0,3 Phase 4. 9469 20 12 0,1 Total 47260 187 84 6





CO2E % 22 63 4 11

CO2E % 49 35 4 12

CO2E % 51 9 9 32

CO2E % 66 9 5 20

CO2E % 50 10 14 27

CO2E % 30 47 12 11



CriPcal assumpPons:

SEFA t SEFAm and LCA

ExcavaPon (well drilling) 9.3 L Diesel/m well 1.75 L Diesel/m well (Lemming et al.,2012)

Phase 1. Site prepara8on

Lemming G. et al. (2012), Is there an environmental benefit from remedia*on of a contaminated site? Combined assessments of the risk reduc*on and life cycle impact of remedia*on, Journal of Environmental Management 112: 392-‐403

ISCO ERD

Construc8on material: 60% Concrete 40% PVC

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

SEFAt SEFAm LCA

CO2 e

q (kg)

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

SEFAt SEFAm LCA

Others

Electricity

Offsite services

Chemicals

Construc8on material

Transport

Excava8on

SEFAt + SEFAm LCA (Ecoinvent)

Diesel emissions 4.3 kg CO2/ L Diesel 3 kg CO2/ L Diesel


ISCO


SEFA LCA

Metrics SEFA t SEFAm Ecoinvent3

Chemicals 1.7 tonCO2/ ton chemicals 4 tonCO2/ton KMnO4 (Sigriest et al.,2011) 1.60 tonCO2/ton KMnO4

0.49 tonCO2/ ton molasses 0.33 tonCO2/ ton molasses

Transport 1.6 kgCO2/km 0.6 kgCO2/km (ISPRA, 2013; ACI, 2013) F (type of vehicle)

Phase 2. Site Opera8on

Siegrist et al. (2011) “In Situ Chemical Oxida*on for Groundwater Remedia*on”, SERDP and ESTCP ISPRA (2013) SINAnet ACI (2013) Sta*s*cal Yearbook 2013

ERD

CriPcal assumpPons:

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

SEFAt SEFAm LCA 0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

SEFAt SEFAm LCA

Others

Electricity

Offsite services

Chemicals

Construc8on material

Transport

Excava8on

CO2 e

q (kg)


LCA RESULTS: COMPARISON OF IMPACT ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGIES

Comparison of IMPACT 2002+ and CML-‐IA methodologies:

CML-‐IA IMPACT 2002+

DeplePon of minerals ISCO ISCO

DeplePon of fossil fuels ERD ERD

Ozone layer deplePon ERD ERD

Photochemical oxidaPon ERD ERD

Global warming ERD ERD

AcidificaPon ERD ERD

EutrophicaPon ERD ISCO

Toxicity effects on humans ISCO ERD

Toxicity effects on environmental receptors ISCO ERD


EutrophicaPon


79% KMnO4 producPon

95% sugar beet culPvaPon

98% sugar beet culPvaPon 40% KMnO4

producPon 25% well drilling 15% construcPon material 9% transport

39% well drilling 33% construcPon material 13% transport

CML (kg PO43-‐ equivalents)

Impact 2002+ (kg PO43-‐ equivalents into

a P-‐limited water ) only aqua8c

78% KMnO4 producPon 64% Bitumen

21% PVC

N-‐containing compounds and phosphates in groundwater long term not considered (characteriza8on factor = 0)


Fresh water ecotoxicity


79% KMnO4 producPon

76% KMnO4 producPon

98% PVC pipes

35% KMnO4 producPon 48% transport

72% transport

CML (kg 1,4-‐dichlorobenzene equivalents)

Impact 2002+ (kg triethylene glycol equivalents in water)

66% tap water producPon 17% KMnO4 producPon

84% KMnO4 producPon

96% sugar beet culPvaPon

0

500000

1000000

1500000

2000000

2500000

ISCO ERD

Aluminium in water Aluminium in air Aluminium in ground Copper in water Copper in air Zinc in water Copper in ground An8mony in water Barium in water Zinc in ground


CONCLUSIONS

-‐  In this work we showed the first results of an ongoing study aimed at comparing the

environmental footprint of clean-‐up technologies provided by different level 3 tools.

-‐  Results show that star8ng from the same project data the results may differ significantly

depending on the tool and impact characteriza8on method (for LCA) employed

-‐  In par8cular, some assump8ons showed to cri8cally affect the outcome of the assessment

(e.g. CO2 emission factors for well drilling or reagent produc8on)

-‐  This result suggests that the blind use of these tools could lead to wrong conclusions thus

affec8ng the regulator’s decision

-‐  Hence, we would suggest to perform a sensi8vity analysis with regard to the cri8cal

parameters, to possibly compare the results of different tools and different impact

characteriza8on methods

-‐  Taking into considera8on the variability of the results, the decision on the remedia8on

strategy should not be based only on the numerical result of the tool but on a stakeholder

evalua8on relying also on social and economical sustainability criteria

comparison#ofdifferent#tools# ......phase1. 14887 40 24 3 2683 6 2 0 2516 5 9 0,4 phase4. 9386 19 11...

Documents